Thanks Heiko ... 225 it's not bad too Good idea to give me information about your configuration, but as it's a 3D software engine, it's rather your microprocessors that are important.I have a very old PC (which I have to change soon) and I can't know the speed with the new microprocessors... I have ~50 fps on my dinosaur pc The engine is not yet very optimized so your results are very encouraging.

I am interested in 3D software engines for pleasure but also for ease of export (iOS, Android, ...) and future adaptations (for example with others API).

I would probably make textured versions soon.Some may also be interested in the 3DS loader.

-- EDIT : In fact, it's also related to the GPU and not just the CPU because I use an opengl function for the final display (an equivalent of mem2sprite) and it's really slow with my old Intel graphics chipset Without this function I have ~320 fps --

Mentalthink, yes it's strange.But anyway the function mem2sprite is too slow (even the equivalent function that I use, although faster, is too slow) and the speed differences between each chipset are too important... it's an Opengl problem You're right, the development of loaders is interesting - in any case more interesting than a graphics engine software too slow ... - Especially a skeleton animation loader (with of course the routine to display it), the .ddd format is nice but not flexible enough and takes up too much memory.I would look at that when I would have recovered from the disappointment of my 3d software engine ...

500fps on desktop (i5-3470, Radeon 7750), and I think that it's locked for it in app or driver.. didn't test on laptop and tablet with Intel HD, but if You want can do this later. Your are using function similar to mem2sprite? interesting ;-)

Yes mem2sprite is quite slow, I use the opengl function glTexSubImage2D which is much faster (but not enough and with a lot of differences depending on the chipsets).Qedo has created a similar (and more flexible) version than mine here:https://www.glbasic.com/forum/index.php?topic=11107.0

It isn't so slow, but it depends on what you want to achieve, maybe playing with pixel format type would help somewhat if full ARGB isn't needed, and pure c++ array may be faster than passing pointer to GLB array.result on tablet with Intel x5-z8350 and Intel HD Graphics: 120fps

It's not really the problem. As I said above, without this function, and therefore without the use of opengl, I go from 50 to 320 on my very old PC (probably +1000 on your I5 without this function).An option to completely disable opengl and provide only a framebuffer would be fine (even if we can't use the 2D and 3D graphics functions after that). For example, using this type of library:https://sourceforge.net/projects/pixeltoaster/

In the future, the options to choose its graphics module (opengl, opencl, directx, vulkan, metal ... or none) would also be interesting to have a program perfectly suited to the chosen platform.But this is much more complicated and requires the help of Master Kitty